By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, March 13: On the back of sustained public pressure and criticism from Opposition leaders, the Meghalaya government has walked back on its earlier stance regarding land acquisitions by the Meghalaya Investment Promotion Authority (MIPA). In a significant reversal, the State Assembly on Thursday unanimously adopted an amendment to remove a section on the creation of land banks from the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion and Facilitation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, before passing the bill.
The move comes after weeks of public outcry, with civil society groups and opposition leaders raising alarms over the potential misuse of land acquisition powers under the Act.
Moving the amendment, Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma acknowledged the apprehensions surrounding the provision. He stated that despite a previous amendment to Section 34 of the Act, concerns persisted, prompting the government to introduce another amendment to reassure the public.
“We are here to listen to the concerns of the people without compromising the broader objective of investment,” Sangma said. “Hence, we have moved this amendment to delete the words in Subsection 3 of Section 4, Clause 1, which states, and I quote, ‘Creation of land banks through direct purchase of land or other means.’”
He clarified that this deletion serves as a clear message that MIPA (Meghalaya Investment Promotion Agency) is not intended to create land banks for allocation. He assured that MIPA would not engage in land purchases, land bank creation, or any system facilitating land transfer or leasing. Instead, it would strictly focus on investment facilitation, adhering to existing rules and laws to create a conducive ecosystem for investment.
Room for discussion
“There is significant scope for discussion,” the chief minister said. “As we formulate rules under this Act, we will engage with stakeholders to address concerns.”
Reiterating the bill’s intent, the CM said, “As its name suggests, the Meghalaya State Investment Promotion and Facilitation Act is solely meant to promote and facilitate investment. MIPA is not here to buy or forcefully transfer land. There is no question of transferring land to any company or organisation, which has been a major concern.”
The state government has assured that all stakeholders, including various organisations, will be consulted during the framing of the rules for MIPFA 2024.
In a letter addressed to KSU president Lambokstarwell Marngar, Commissioner and Secretary of the Home (Political) department, Cyril V Diengdoh, stated that the government has taken into account the suggestions made by the student body during their discussion on March 11, as well as the letter they submitted on January 20.
Diengdoh emphasised that concerns raised by civil society groups, including the KSU, have been incorporated and addressed in the proposed Amendment Bill, which was tabled during the Budget session.
He further clarified that the MIPFA will not dilute any provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, and will not bypass any laws related to the Autonomous District Councils.
Mixed reactions
The reversal was met with mixed reactions. While opposition leader Mukul Sangma called it a “reactionary move”, accusing the government of failing to anticipate public resistance, other members welcomed the amendment.
UDP MLA from Shella, Balajied Rani, emphasised that land is a highly sensitive issue, central to development concerns. He, however, highlighted lingering issues, pointing to Section 39, which states that no legal proceedings can be initiated against the chairman or other members of the governing council, the High-Powered Committee, the State Investment Committee, the District Investment Nodal Agency, or any employee of these committees for actions taken in good faith under the Act.
“I find this section particularly intriguing. Under the Constitution, only the President and the Governor are granted such protection under Article 361. My appeal to the government is to review this provision with due consideration,” he said.
He suggested that when rules for the Act are formulated, discussions should be held to ensure they are framed in a way that truly benefits the people.
Amendment ‘reactionary’
Leader of Opposition Mukul Sangma, however, raised concerns over how the government’s handling of the MIPFA amendment, questioning the lack of prior consultation and the ambiguity surrounding land acquisition provisions.
Sangma took issue with the manner in which the amendment was introduced, stating, “This discussion to bring the amendment was not done prior to tabling this proposed amendment for consideration of this House.” He pointed out that the subsequent amendment introduced by the chief minister was a reactionary move rather than a well-thought-out plan.
One of Sangma’s primary concerns was the creation of land banks through “direct purchase or other means,” a phrase he found particularly troubling. “How will you define these other means?” he asked, suggesting that the vague terminology left room for arbitrary government actions that could undermine tribal land rights.
He emphasised the need for a proper Social Impact Assessment (SIA) before any land acquisition, referencing past cases where tribal land was taken for projects without adequate safeguards. “If we go by past acquisitions of land that have taken place… the right to fair compensation was therefore compromised,” he said.
Acknowledging the role of civil society in holding the government accountable, Sangma commended public vigilance. “I appreciate our committed, vigilant, alert members of the civil society. We have been blessed by civil society organisations over the years,” he said.
The veteran politician urged the government to exercise foresight, warning against hasty decisions that could have long-term repercussions for Meghalaya’s indigenous communities. “The power of anticipation is very crucial for us… anticipation of the fallout of any decision,” he said.